How exactly do the benefits outweigh the risks with vaccines?
Vaccines do NOT guarantee immunity and come with a very long list of possible adverse reactions including chronic illnesses, brain swelling and death. There are stories all over the internet of children suffering with these reactions including many death stories. So if vaccines don't guarantee immunity and openly admit they have the potential to injure and kill, what exactly are the benefits? All the children being injured and killed by vaccines are they just the necessary sacrifices for the greater good? Would you feel that way if it was your child that suffered? I have researched into childhood diseases and most are very benign and have extremely high survival rates so long as your child has a healthy immune system. Why would anyone risk their child's life and overall health with a vaccine injection to only maybe protect them from a disease they most likely won't get and if they do have an almost 100% chance of making a full recovery? What if that shot killed them or injured them for life? Just as a disease can be dangerous so can vaccines, and again they come with no guarantee. But if you choose not to vaccinate then you are guaranteed your child won't suffer from one or more of the many possible adverse reactions. I'd much rather go with the guarantee. What are your thoughts?
Vaccine failure admitted: Whooping cough outbreaks higher among children already vaccinated
The truth about polio: History shows polio caused by pesticide exposure, then was eradicated by decline in DDT use (NOT the vaccine)
Stop blaming the unvaccinated. The unvaccinated are not starting the outbreaks they are the healthiest people on the planet. The ones starting the outbreaks are those being injected with weakened viruses and shedding those viruses for up to 6 weeks.
Secondary Transmission: The short and sweet about live virus vaccine shedding.
Wow Rhianna creating brand new accounts now! Just like I knew you would LOL You just can't stop the harassment can you? I have blocked 3 of your other accounts and I will continue to block every new one you create. Here let me try this STOP HARASSING ME RHIANNA! If you think your cyber-bullying is going to scare me away think again. The more you attack me the longer I stick around. You are making a fool of yourself and I am really enjoying it :o)
Oh and MRS. A thank you for the Inside Vaccines link I have bookmarked it. I was not familiar with this one and it is full of lots of great info.
- ~qx~Lv 78 years agoFavorite Answer
"If this is preventive medicine, I will take my chances with disease." - Dr. Robert S. Mendelsohn, MD.
I had those childhood diseases and I enjoy good health today as do my many siblings and my own children and grandchildren. We do not have allergies or chronic diseases; medical doctors do not see us nor do they profit from our good health.
Therefore, medical doctors do not care about us. Thank G-d!
- pattonjrLv 44 years ago
Depends upon how severe the eczema is, your subculture and where you are living. My eczema grew to be surely insufferable after I had a tetanus booster 10 years ago, but failed to make a change last Fall. I can't think how miserable it could be for an infant who can't even have steroids to check out to alleviate the itching. Most youngsters with eczema is not going to have a enormous worsening of the crisis, but if your child already had that occur with the first set of pictures, possibilities are, it'll happen once more. My bet is that those which might be affected have an underlying immune predicament (which my family has). Baby eczema is more commonly identified at three months. Vaccinations do not purpose the eczema, but it could possibly make it much worse.
- A derka derLv 78 years ago
Most of the time when a child has an adverse reaction there are other factors at play, such as them already having an infection, being of a rare and very particular genetic make up or other things that there was no way to know about it before hand.
Even if you still get a sickness that you've been immunized against, you are much less likely to have it as severely.
If children weren't immunized, these diseases would running rampant, and the burden on the health care system would be immense. As such, the quality of care would decline and there's no way to tell how that would affect the mortality rate of sick kids. At the moment IF a child gets sick, they can receive very good care.
for example, as I don't know the numbers, a 98% chance of being protected is worth the 0.01% chance that my child might have an adverse reaction. Especially against something like whooping cough or polio.
thanks to enough people NOT being immunized there is currently a measles outbreak in Sydney Australia.
- Anonymous8 years ago
Nothing is guaranteed in life. Vaccines do carry risks, but the risk of harm is greater without the vaccine. I have asked you numerous times before to show me where in the package insert it says one of the risks is "chronic illnesses" and death.
You're overestimating the risks of vaccinating (and inventing risks) and underestimating the harm vaccine preventable diseases can cause. The risk of encephalitis (brain swelling) following infection with the measles virus is 1 in 1000, the risk of encephalitis following vaccination is one in a MILLION. This is basic math.
Another example: Diphtheria, Tetanus, and Pertussis vs. DTap Vaccine
Diphtheria death: 1 in 20; Tetanus death: 2 in 10; Pertussis - Pneumonia: 1 in 8, Encephalitis: 1 in 20, Death: 1 in 1,500
The risk of the DTap vaccine: Continuous crying, then full recovery: 1 in 1000, Convulsions or shock, then full recovery: 1 in 14,000, Acute encephalopathy: 0-10.5 in 1,000,000. Death: None proven
The benefits outweigh the risks. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm#r...
Anecdotes (stories) aren't data. They are a perception of something that has been experienced or, witnessed with their bias firmly grounded. They shouldn't be rejected, sometimes they warrant a basis for further investigation, to establish data, but the story in itself is not data. Just because something happens *after* vaccination, does not necessarily mean it occurred *because* of vaccination.Read more about this fallacy: http://www.skepdic.com/posthoc.html
I don't think you understand probability: http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/understan...
"I have researched into childhood diseases and most are very benign and have extremely high survival rates so long as your child has a healthy immune system. "
Post-infectious encephalitis is a well known complication of a number of common infections (measles, mumps, varicella and influenza to name a few). The immune system produces antibodies intended to fight the infection, but are sent to the brain instead, causing inflammation of the tissue. Sometimes it is your own healthy immune system that causes the damage.
"Why would anyone risk their child's life and overall health with a vaccine injection to only maybe protect them from a disease they most likely won't get "
Currently, the unvaccinated are protected by the herd immunity provided by others; in short the risks of catching the disease is rare because thanks to vaccines these diseases have a very low incidence. However, this is sadly no longer the case for some diseases. Measles is endemic in part of the UK and we are experiencing the biggest outbreak of whooping cough we have seen in 20 years, in the US, the worst in 70 years.
" But if you choose not to vaccinate then you are guaranteed your child won't suffer from one or more of the many possible adverse reactions. I'd much rather go with the guarantee"
You're creating a false dichotomy but choosing between diseases and vaccine injury. More harm will come from avoiding vaccines.
"Whooping cough outbreaks higher among children already vaccinated"
The problem we are seeing at the moment is two fold, well possibly three but we need more data on the other factor. One of the factors is waning immunity. The vaccine does not last as long as previously thought, this does NOT mean the vaccine does not work, we just need to adjust the schedule to include boosters. The second factor is poor uptake. When these factors co-exist, we get outbreaks. The CDC state, “Vaccination continues to be the single most effective strategy to reduce morbidity and mortality caused by pertussis.
And NaturalNews are making stuff up by claiming vaccinated children had higher rates of pertussis than unvaccinated, this isn't stated in the news article OR original research. The Reuters article are not talking about unvaccinated verses vaccinated, they said, “immunized children between eight and 12 years old were more likely to catch the bacterial disease than kids of other ages." which ties is perfectly with waning immunity. Always look at the source, don't take Mike Adams word for it: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=David%20Wi...
Polio very clearly isn't pesticide exposure. You're confusing correlation with causation. See the link above, "post hoc ergo propter hoc"
And it's not even that much of a correlation. The drop in incidence of polio precedes the decline in the production of DDT.
You've been duped, Holly.
There are many who have been in your position: http://momswhovax.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/from-anti...
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Janet PierceLv 78 years ago
The anti-vaxxers really got to you. A pity.
You can't imagine the guilt a mother feels when her child is suffering from a disease she could have prevented by one vaccine. Children left permanently impaired, or worse yet dead.
But go along your merry way. It means more left for us when they're all gone.
- 8 years ago
SWine flu- 1 billion dollars deficit , all so pharmaceuticals could make a few bucks. we've been tricked twice 1960s
Saddest thing is i got the vaccine too